Now you see it…(09/14/2010)
Now you don’t…(09/15/2010)
In their zeal to get on the “death spiral” train of wild claims about Arctic sea ice, NOAA has made a major blunder, which they’ve now had to correct. Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Marty yesterday who wrote:
I looked at it, it didn’t make sense. Where did they get “2nd Lowest Extent on Record” from? None of the datasets supported it.
Here’s the link to the page shown above, current and corrected today.
I dashed off an email to Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC:
————————————————–
From: “Anthony Watts” <awatts@xxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:40 PM
To: “Walt Meier” <walt@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: This NSIDC citation seems wrong
Hello Walt,
They are citing your NSIDC Sept 7th report which says “third lowest”
http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail.php?MediaID=521&MediaTypeID=2&MediaFileID=108
Watching all of the values, I can’t see where they get this, AMSRE certainly doesn’t support it:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Could they be fooled by the recent SSMI outage I just mentioned? Looking at the NANSEN graph I sent earlier, their claim would be valid if that data was valid.
Or have I missed something?
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
While I was waiting for a response from Walt, I made a screencap that showed my computer date and time of 0914/2010 @4:30PM PST.
Walt wrote back about two hours later saying:
————————————————–
From: “Walt Meier” <walt@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:37 PM
To: “Anthony Watts” <awatts@xxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: This NSIDC citation seems wrong
Hi Anthony,
I don’t really know what this is. It is not related to the data outage we experienced today. It is an experimental product that looks like it is based on visual imagery, not passive microwave, so there could be problems with clouds. Also they may have a high concentration threshold – the “missing” areas of ice correspond to relatively low concentrations, but still well above the generally accepted cutoffs of 15% or 30%.
I didn’t actually see an NSIDC citation – was it in the animation (I can’t open it up on my laptop)?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I’ll check into it.
walt
I wrote back to point out that the citation was in the text link in the 0914/2010 NOAA article where they say: “the second lowest sea ice extent ever measured.” He responded:
————————————————–
From: “Walt Meier” <walt@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:46 AM
To: “Anthony Watts” <awatts@xxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: This NSIDC citation seems wrong
Ah, okay. Thanks. That links to our report on August conditions.
August 2010 was indeed the 2nd lowest. However, for the minimum we’re currently 3rd lowest and I don’t see us reaching 2nd lowest this year.
walt
Interestingly, as Walt points out, NOAA apparently never read (or perhaps comprehended if they did) the NSIDC Sept 7th Sea Ice News article that text links to because in that they clearly say:
On September 3, ice extent dropped below the seasonal minimum for 2009 to become the third lowest in the satellite record.
This morning, the NOAA sea ice page was corrected as you can see in the images above where the yellow highlight exists. I believe that was due to Walt’s “checking into it”. Their correction, with added “satellite record” on the end is word for word what NSIDC says.
I find it comical that ordinary citizens are the ones that keep catching NOAA in these basic errors in broad daylight. I’ve touched on these issues before here.
My thanks to WUWT reader “Marty”, and especially to Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC for his continued willingness to communicate and to address accuracy in science reporting.
In other news, NSIDC now confirms what I said on Sunday 09/12/2010:
Sea Ice News #22 – melt season may have turned the corner
Here’s the NSIDC headline today:
September 15, 2010
Arctic sea ice reaches annual minimum extent
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the long-term trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So “22% BELOW NORMAL” means what? They have only got half a cycle on record.
“and continues the long-term trend of decreasing summer sea ice.”
Hmm… 2007 was lowest, 2008 was back up, 2009 was up some more, and then 2010 was lower than 2009, but still higher than 2007 or 2008. Seems to me that this is continuing the (so far) short-term trend of recovery, although it is a step down from 2009 levels.
Joe Bastardi said the recovery off of the 2007 lows would be a “2 steps forward, 1 step back” sort of affair, so this seems to fit right into Joe’s theory.
http://www.ehabich.info/images/synchro/arctic.jpg
Looks like part of a strong downward trend in ice extent. Unfortunately, the data on ice volume suggests an even sharper decline.
They never did acknowledge the record high sea ice in the Antarctic either.
OT, I’ve done a calculation on wind power.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/10326/
I’ld say the long term trend (if not using a linear function) has stalled, not continued.
I’m glad to see they’re willing to change things so quickly and not balk about it and try to defend an obvious error out of stubbornness. I’m sure it’s difficult to have most of their statements scrutinized so closely now. This seems to be a good step in the right direction at least.
Not that any of the above excuses the error.
-Scott
I don’t think anyone would have a problem with an occasional error here or there, as things do happen. But….it apppears that the errors are almost always in the direction of “things are worst than expected”. This holds for virtually all of the climate data entities who are managed by AGW leaning individuals. If we point out an error, they simply say “oops”. If a skeptic makes an error, they are labeled as lying deniers!
Everybody makes mistakes. But you do get to suspicioning zealotry when mistakes always seem to be in one direction.
But kudos to Dr. Walt (a gentleman and a scholar) for jumping on it and getting to the right people to get it resolved.
Next year should be interesting. There is something to be said for the idea that there had never been three up years in a row in the satellite record, so expecting one this year (as I did) was always a risk, and does not in any way foreclose a return to long-term recovery in 2011.
Otoh, it is also quite credible to look at 2006-2010 and see an outlier in 2007 corrected by 2008-2009 and returning to the long-term pre-2007 trend in 2010.
Soo. . .2011, let’s see whatcha got.
I guess I have to ask this dumb question again.
Why should I care about Arctic ice extent?
Its cold, gets in the way of transportation and produces nothing useful that I can see apart for somewhere for nuclear subs to hide. If it all went away tomorrow wouldn’t that be a Good Thing? Its all floating ice so no effect on sea levels either,
Please tell me politely why I am wrong. Thanks
Funny how these “errors” always seem to be pointed in the warming direction, like the IPCC “errors”.
An intentional bias, or just errors that occur when one is not objective, but rather agenda driven.
-Jay
NO Accurate Appreciation
Mistakes will happen, but isn’t it funny how they tend to point in one direction?
BTW, Eureka is currently -10.3 C
I would imagine that if next years ice minimum is up on this year, that will be the 4th lowest, then if it increases the following year I take it that will be the 5th lowest. I have a picture of a man in the lower Palaeolithic saying to his friend as they gaze out from their cave on mile thick glaciers ” you know that this is the 4300th lowest ice level on record” In other words, when does the focus on lowest, become average or increased?
Second or third lowest on record (i.e., recorded history)? Hmmmmmm, and the time record for recorded history (of artic ice) would be a couple of centuries or so? It would be interesting to go back, say, 13,000 years and see how the Clovis people in America would have responded to the news that the artic ice caps were receding and it was going to get warmer. I’m sure they would believe that the spirits were being kind to them.
According to the NOAA graphic at the top, the N.W. Passage looks clear. Anyone fancy a sailing trip?
22% below normal.
Of course their “normal” period starts in 1979. One would be under the impression there are no records prior to that.
“Latimer Alder says:
September 15, 2010 at 10:52 am
I guess I have to ask this dumb question again.
Why should I care about Arctic ice extent?
Its cold, gets in the way of transportation and produces nothing useful that I can see apart for somewhere for nuclear subs to hide. If it all went away tomorrow wouldn’t that be a Good Thing? Its all floating ice so no effect on sea levels either,
Please tell me politely why I am wrong. Thanks”
Latimer,
You’re right, but due to how the CAGW people want to use this as a proxy for their agenda that CO2 is causing the planets Global Climate to warm up makes me want to say you’re wrong too.
It’s sad that we Skeptics have to look for the Arctic Ice to “Recover”, since in the long run that would mean we are correct on another front, that being we are heading into the beginnings of a cooling trend. And this cooling trend could last for thirty or more years. In fact if we could get a true record of the temperture record over the past 10,000 years it would most likely show we are on a cooling trend toward the next Glaciation. (I’m not sure which optimum was the warmest point, but I’m thinking it would have been the Roman Optimum.)
~Karen
I think they knew it was wrong and would be spotted, I think they’re winding us up!
It could be the lowest in the past couple of years.
Environment Canada is calling for”a delay in freeze-up of 1 to 2 weeks can be expected” and “Overall, by mid-October,the formation and pattern of new and young ice areas will resemble those normally found in the first week of October”, for the EASTERN AND NORTHERN ARCTIC as well as WESTERN AND CENTRAL ARCTIC.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN16CWIS/20100915000000_FECN16CWIS_0005190796.txt
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN14CWIS/20100915000000_FECN14CWIS_0005190794.txt
A data outage right at the moment of minimum…. How embarassing.
How in the heck can the trend be going “below the average” when WE HAVE NO AVERAGE of any sort since we only have 30+ years of data?
How do we know that the ONLY reason the ice is now “trending down” is that the ice had “trended up” when we first began measuring it?
BillD says: September 15, 2010 at 10:27 am
“Unfortunately, the data on ice volume suggests an even sharper decline.”
What data?
Computer model outputs are not data, so I ask again, what data?
A satellite capable of actually directly measuring ice volume, from the freeboard and surface/altitude delta was launched just this year, so what data are you referring to?
The satellite capable of actually directly measuring ice volume has a very short lifespan 4 or 5 years, so it will not even get a single cycle, so it will likely only ever see growth in volume since we have such a low starting point (nice cherry) during its lifetime.
It will be humorous (and deceptive) to be able to write; ‘since we have launched a satellite that can accurately measure ice volume, the volume has increased every single year’; or ‘during the entire lifespan of the most accurate ice volume measuring satellite we have seen a sharp trend in the increasing ice volume’.
What data?